Picture Tube TVs: Going Away Faster Than Expected

[Specialist]

http://tinyurl.com/zqb42

Not everybody will be phasing them out, however.

"We think there is a continual business for us in CRT TVs," said Greg Bosler, executive vice president of the TTE Corporation, which owns the RCA brand.

Bosler, who counts Wal-Mart as a key customer for its TVs, noted that a 27-inch LCD. TV was still priced around $800, while an RCA digital picture-tube set of the same size could be bought for $350; an analog version was $240.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Seeker47]

http://tinyurl.com/zqb42

Not everybody will be phasing them out, however.

"We think there is a continual business for us in CRT TVs," said Greg Bosler, executive vice president of the TTE Corporation, which owns the RCA brand.

I guess I'm just one of the dinosaurs, but I still think there's a lot to be said in favor of a good direct-view CRT.
For the last couple years, Costco has been selling some Phillips CRTs, including HD models in one or two sizes. I wasn't ready to change TVs, but I did wonder if these were considered to be any good, by those in the know ? But at this point, maybe it doesn't matter . . . .

[Specialist]

Well, I look at it this way...

I have a big collection of STANDARD DEFINITION movies on DVD.

These are typical Hollywood DVD movies and TV shows and there's no way I'm going to buy a second collection... just to be able to "upgrade" to either HD DVD or Blu-ray Disc.

So -- for me -- my 27" standard definition tube TVs are just fine.

They are new models... with built-in digital ATSC/Clear Qam tuners.

They display Hollywood DVD movies and TV shows with superb picture quality.

I also have two flat panel monitors.

In my opinion, the standard definition DVD picture looks better on the interlaced tube TV monitor than it does on the flat panel LCDs.

There's no question in my mind that the LCDs would look better if they were displaying HIGH DEFINITION movies on HIGH DEFINITION discs.

But for standard definition discs, the tube TVs still rule... for me.

And with the ATSC digital tuners built-in, I can watch PBS in DVD quality.

I don't bother with ABC, CBS, NBC, or FOX.

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

[somebodeez]

Well, I look at it this way...

I have a big collection of STANDARD DEFINITION movies on DVD.

Same here!
I like my CRTs!

[painkiller]

I couldn't help but notice in the most recent adverts (Best Buy or Circuit City) they advertised the SAMSUNG "Slim Fit" CRT televisions as having an upper resolution of 720p.

That is incorrect.

This was one of, if not the first, CRT HDTV that offered full 1080i resolution.

For depth of black and contrast, this CRT really does a picture good.

Too bad nobody points that out. Unfortunately it is only 30" diagonally.
But that could be okay for most.

It's now sub-$800. When first came out, $999.

[lordsmurf]

In my opinion, the standard definition DVD picture looks better on the interlaced tube TV monitor than it does on the flat panel LCDs.

It's a shame more people don't realize this.
Newer technology displays makes older movies and broadcasts look worse.

[Wile_E]

This is sad news. LCD's have one advantage only. They take up less space. CRT's, at least a good one, has much better picture quality IMO. I still only use CRT Trinitron monitor(.24dp) with my computer. I have yet to find a LCD that rivals my monitor. Many people don't realize the advantages of CRT. They have a very fine dot-pitch, and no native resolution. Colors are also more true to natural. LCD's color are very oversaturated.

SED TV's look promising.

To Greg Bosler of RCA: While you are at it, how about bringing back the manufacturing jobs back to the USA? The TV was the last technological piece of equipment to be made here in the USA. Your precious RCA company closed down manufacturing, resulting in thousands of people without jobs. Same thing goes for Zenith and all other USA TV manufacturers. IMO, the industry was a total sell-out.

[yoda313]

I think the slimtube crts will keep the tube around for awhile. You get the same performance at a much smaller footprint.

[davideck]

Newer technology displays makes older movies and broadcasts look worse.

Times are changing. People are buying HDTV to watch HD. Watching SD for them is what watching B+W on a new Color Set must have been like long ago. SDTV looks good enough.

My Widescreen DVDs upconverted to an LCD HDTV look fantastic, particularly over HDMI.

LCD's have one advantage only. They take up less space.

I can think of more. Weight. The Slimline sets did a fine job on the footprint, but they are still very heavy. Convergence, Focus, and Geometry. By the nature of its design, a flat panel is virtually perfect in these areas sometimes mentioned as issues in the reviews of the current CRTs. Unfortunately, I think that good consumer CRTs are already gone.

[lordsmurf]

Well, I would prefer to watch a classic B&W sitcom (I Love Lucy) over that crap that passes for "HD entertainment" these days. I'm not alone. And I'm not a senior citizen either, it'll be quite a few decades before I get there.

And I don't know about you, but these LCDs are still damned heavy.

There is more than 100 years of SD video out there, and even then most modern stuff is shot SD too, not HD. The push to HD is just not there. While it may give more resolution, it also shows more noise and tends to add blurring and other problems. Gain 1 advantage and take 2 quality hits? Does not sound like progress to me.

[somebodeez]

Well, I would prefer to watch a classic B&W sitcom (I Love Lucy) over that crap that passes for "HD entertainment" these days. I'm not alone. And I'm not a senior citizen either, it'll be quite a few decades before I get there.

I'm with you on that!

While it may give more resolution, it also shows more noise and tends to add blurring and other problems. Gain 1 advantage and take 2 quality hits? Does not sound like progress to me.

I'm with you on that too.

[davideck]

Well, I would prefer to watch a classic B&W sitcom (I Love Lucy) over that crap that passes for "HD entertainment" these days. I'm not alone. And I'm not a senior citizen either, it'll be quite a few decades before I get there.

I feel the same.
But at the same time, PBS airs an HDTV concert every week and Sunday Night Football was great yesterday. Rented DVDs are fantastic. All in 5.1 Surround. You don't have to watch the junk to enjoy the good stuff.

The push to HD is just not there. While it may give more resolution, it also shows more noise and tends to add blurring and other problems. Gain 1 advantage and take 2 quality hits? Does not sound like progress to me.

I see a lot of people buying them. That's progress, I guess.

[painkiller]

Yes, I see a lot of people buying them as well.

I figure it's the "WOW" factor causing the people to buy them.

Even for those brands being sold at COSTCO, most are not capable of the upper resolution of hdtv (meaning 1080i or p) - just above the DVD resolution though.

Just as interesting, I notice a good number of returns of these same flat screens to the store.

I had been within earshot of some older folk arguing over which to buy, what the various connectors were for - and walking away disgusted because it was too much for them. Most of the buyers are younger than me (!!!).

[adam]

There is more than 100 years of SD video out there, and even then most modern stuff is shot SD too, not HD.

Sorry but you are way off here. SD is a broadcast and television standard, not a filming standard. The filming equivalent would just be a DV or Hi-8 Camcorder and NOTHING is shot in that unless you've got like a $50 budget. These camcorders may be used sparingly for that combat camera style (ex: parts of Blair Witch) but industry practice is to film in 16mm or 35mm, and it just about always has been. 35mm has been the international standard gauge since 1909!

As a reference, the I Love Lucy episodes you mention were filmed in 35mm, the same format that was used on any of the "blockbusters" released this year.

Both 16mm and 35mm far exceed HD in lines of resolution. They absolutely squash SD. The only reason SD even looks as good as it does on your tv is because it was filmed in at least 16mm.

[ROF]

I only have one tube TV left. The old RCA in the basement. No tube monitors at all anymore here. Sold my last trinitron last year. good riddance. My electric bill has shown drastic improvement. I don't really see what all the hoopla for these new sets is, but then again I have only seen limited HD content on two of them only. As someone else said, they can still be quite heavy.

[Jake802]

Having just purchased a 32 Inch Widescreen HDTV, I have to side with Lord Smurf. I miss my CRT already! Everything but High Def looks like crap!

[budz]

Just as interesting, I notice a good number of returns of these same flat screens to the store.

Because consumers who walk into a Costco, Samsclub, Best Buy and Circuit City to buy a LCD TV think the set they buy will look just as good like when they see it in the store/membership warehouse. But only to find out when they hook it up to their analog/digital cable box the video quailty is not like how they saw it. Thus there are many returns to Costco since they give you a one year warranty no questions asked. Which is why Costco has signs posted in their warehouses that High Definition quality is only with a HD box. All these stores/warehouses don't tell the customers they have one HD signal that feeds into all those LCD TV's that are on display. Which makes the quailty so stunningly beautiful to the unsuspecting consumer looking to buy their first LCD TV.

I bought my first LCD TV back in February and enjoy watching my dvd movies with my Sony & Cyberhome Upconverting dvd players. It's only a 23inch Samsung so the quailty is quite good. I'm waiting on my 32 inch Sony XBR CRT to die of old age before I bite the big bullet to purchase a 32 inch or 40 inch Sony XBR LCD TV. I have digital cable where the quality of some stations isn't the best but for the stations I record from the video quality is awesome. At least with digital cable the video quality is a better than analog cable.

[TBoneit]

My 2 cents... I would have preferred a Tube HDTV, howver the biggies were I could get a 32" lcd into the car. I could handle the weight easily. And to be honest it looks real good as a computer monitor and via my new toy a HD DVR and another recent toy the Phillips 5960 via component set to progressive and 16x9.

Last TV I handled was 27" Sony SDTV and I had to take it out of the box to get it into the car. Then I had to use a computer chair with wheels as a makeshift dolly to get it into the house.

Remembering all that, The LCD was the way to go for me. The picture isn't bad, I'm using it as a monitor right now as I type. Then I switch to the HDMI input as a feed for the PIP and protocol is running in HD. Audio through a 5.1 sound system.

Maybwe if I had a HDTV that was a tube model previously I'd be less happy with my new toy, but I only had a SDTV tube model and this one really makes DVDs look much better.

[lordsmurf]

As a reference, the I Love Lucy episodes you mention were filmed in 35mm, the same format that was used on any of the "blockbusters" released this year.

That sounds nice, and it does make a point. But I do not have the 35mm reels sitting among my hundreds of VHS tapes and DVDs.

Look at the Leave It To Beaver DVD release. The video is grainy as hell and full of noise. If they cannot even get a DVD right, from their 35mm film source, why would I even halfway consider the HD version would look any better? There are many more, too. Married With Children, Pokemon, Garfield & Friends. Those DVDs all look like shit.

The Beaver is almost unwatchable on an LCD, it is more than tolerable on a tube, because tubes hide noise. Until HD and future digital technologies can hide noise (and not add any new noises), and the released videos (and satellite/digital feed) look good, something like HDTV is a complete waste of money.

Most of the time, from past sources, more resolution simply means more noise can be seen.

[adam]

lordsmurf, I'm not trying to turn you on to HD. I was responding to what you said about SD. Its just not true.

[CrayonEater]

Most of the time, from past sources, more resolution simply means more noise can be seen.

I wish that could be printed in every ad and on every box of HD equipment.

[ZAPPER]

OK lets see, Four CRT TVs that still work One that is like 20+ years old that doesn't (not the tubes fault, I think lightning got it)

One CRT PC monitor that works, about five years old and one that doesn't work, about 6+ years old, again, not the tubes fault, I think that there is a bad traceing or solder on a board somewhere.


Seven DOT X monitors maybe ten years old with slight burn in, in the upper right corners, but I can live with that. Two undetermined brand CRT monitors maybe ten years old that still work.

What does all of this say?

Well first off I have way too much junk in the house, but more important, in almost 25 years I have never had a picture tube go bad. I have older relatives with like antique stuff that still works.

Here is the deal. I veiw my PC monitor from about 16 to 20 inches away, it looks OK to me.

I veiw my so called editing monitor from about 3 to 5 feet depending on my sitting posture, eh, its one of the DOT X monitors and it looks OK for what it is. I got a little 12" combo unit on top of that for quick VCR testing and color comparison and the tuner. It looks OK for $99.

The 19" in the bed room is like 12' away from my head, I don't watch it but the kids wear out some video games on it.

The 27" in the frontroom I watch from about seven feet away on the floor because by the time I get to watch what I want, everyone else has finally gone to bed and I have to keep the volume down. Except for the kids fingerprints all over it, it looks pretty good.

What's my point? Nothing. I am OK with what I have. I admit that I have seen some really good stuff on display in the stores, but keeping in mind that possibly less tha 10% of what is out there to veiw is true HiDef, why worry? Am I gonna miss the plot of the flick if it isn't the worlds best picture? Will the Three Stooges suddenly become more funny? Will the football game be decided by my televisions resolution?

At the rate I am going as long as I can pump a signal into the back of the sets that I have I am set for life. If and when HiDef becomes the standard and $300 gets a nice setup, I might replace a CRT with one, if one ever goes bad on me.

[davideck]

Until HD and future digital technologies can hide noise (and not add any new noises), and the released videos (and satellite/digital feed) look good, something like HDTV is a complete waste of money.

Most of the time, from past sources, more resolution simply means more noise can be seen.

ATSC and QAM are digital channels. They can be received perfectly. No channel induced noise. Compression artifacts, yes. But overall, the improvement of digital HD over analog SD is significant.

Current widescreen SD DVD releases look great. Many SD CRTs cannot reproduce their full resolution nearly as well as HDTVs can. I don't know why the releases you cite look so bad, but it's not the fault of the HDTV. Insufficient sampling or bitrate perhaps. Newer technologies often reveal the limitations of older ones. It's like expecting to play a cassette on a CD player.

[budz]

lordsmurf wrote:

Look at the Leave It To Beaver DVD release. The video is grainy as hell and full of noise. If they cannot even get a DVD right, from their 35mm film source, why would I even halfway consider the HD version would look any better? There are many more, too. Married With Children, Pokemon, Garfield & Friends. Those DVDs all look like shit.

Hey! I got the first two seasons of LEAVE IT TO BEAVER and they don't look grainy on my LCD TV. It's quality isn't that bad.

[lordsmurf]

. No channel induced noise. Compression artifacts, yes. But overall, the improvement of digital HD over analog SD is significant.

Semantics. Compression artifacts = noise.

[LloydAZ]

My first HD set was an RCA 38" 16:9 direct view CRT. It had a full 1080i resolution and a beautiful picture! It was also one of the only sets on the market that had a built-in ATSC tuner at the time (also built-in DirectTV High Definition Tuner.) And the largest direct-view CRT on the market at that time as well.

Unfortunately it took a nasty voltage spike which burned it out (still under the extended warranty at least!) RCA no longer made the set, and Best Buy didn't have any in stock. I had to replace it with a 52" Toshiba HD-Ready CRT Rear-Projection set.

The RCA was a nice set, but weighed 216 pounds! I don't think the Toshiba even weighs that much.

[davideck]

A 32" CRT set weighs about 140 lbs. A 32" LCD weighs about 50 lbs.

. No channel induced noise. Compression artifacts, yes. But overall, the improvement of digital HD over analog SD is significant.

Semantics. Compression artifacts = noise.

Compression artifacts are also prevalent in SD programming these days. It is no different for HD sources. The level varies from program to program. It is also important to sit far enough away from the set.

[lordsmurf]

Compression artifacts are also prevalent in SD programming these days. It is no different for HD sources. The level varies from program to program. It is also important to sit far enough away from the set.

No argument here. But my point is HD shows more of it. Much more, in some cases.

[Wile_E]

As a reference, the I Love Lucy episodes you mention were filmed in 35mm, the same format that was used on any of the "blockbusters" released this year.

Look at the Leave It To Beaver DVD release. The video is grainy as hell and full of noise. If they cannot even get a DVD right, from their 35mm film source, why would I even halfway consider the HD version would look any better? There are many more, too. Married With Children, Pokemon, Garfield & Friends. Those DVDs all look like shit.

Add Star Trek The Next Generation DVD boxsets to the list. I have the first three seasons I bought cheap from a friend. They have four episodes on each disc. A lot of episodes look grainy. There is also this non-moving "pattern" that is overlayed onto the footage. It's almost like they used an anti-newton glass diffuser when transfering the film to a digital master. I've used one before in my Minolta 35mm slide scanner, and it leaves a similar grainy pattern across the image. I can't wait until there is a storage medium to put a full year's worth of episodes on one disc, while maintaining quality. Even HD-DVD or Blu-Ray doesn't have enough storage to put a full season of shows on it.

[davideck]

Compression artifacts are also prevalent in SD programming these days. It is no different for HD sources. The level varies from program to program. It is also important to sit far enough away from the set.

No argument here. But my point is HD shows more of it. Much more, in some cases.

Yeah, but HD also shows much higher definition. I think people notice that the most. It is more fun to focus on the signal than it is to focus on the noise.

We'll see. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are supposed to solve your complaints. It will be interesting to see their eventual market share.